解析外語自學：學生之抗拒、教師之定位、與校園自學社群之衝突問題

(1)

行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告

解析外語自學：學生之抗拒、教師之定位、與校園自學社

群之衝突問題

研究成果報告(精簡版)

計畫類別：個別型計畫編號： NSC 99-2410-H-004-207- 執行期間： 99 年 08 月 01 日至 100 年 10 月 31 日執行單位：國立政治大學英國語文學系計畫主持人：招靜琪計畫參與人員：碩士班研究生-兼任助理人員：邵佩欣碩士班研究生-兼任助理人員：洪郁閔博士班研究生-兼任助理人員：邱兆文報告附件：出席國際會議研究心得報告及發表論文公開資訊：本計畫涉及專利或其他智慧財產權，2 年後可公開查詢

中華民國 101 年 01 月 31 日

(2)

中文摘要：本研究以個案之課室研究方法，旨在了解初進入大學的大一學生如何面對大學英文課程鼓勵自學的教學措施。本研究設計了一個一學年的教科書專案，讓六個班 180 位同學自己蒐尋、製作、教學。我們想看看學生如何決定題目，過程中如何面對這個學習活動，如何設定自己、老師與英文的角色。結果發現除了少數同學的確做出結果導向的決定，大部分所設定的主題大都是自己喜歡的休閒活動，與前人研究中學生以結果為主要考量的作為不盡相同。但是，過程中學生的抗拒心態仍強，主要原因包括作業內容太多、不了解大學教師之要求、也不太清楚大學老師視以為理所當然的文化等等。為了降低師生間之緊張氣氛，我們做了很多的調整，也提供了更細緻的獎懲制度與教學單元。這個研究凸顯出鼓勵大一新生進行英語自學的實質困難，也讓老師們有機會檢視我們對學生自學的期待。教師往往不全然清楚自己對所謂學生自學的期待，導致可能太多不實際的要求。文後提出師生合作達成自學理想的建議。中文關鍵詞：外語自學、學生之抗拒、課室教學研究

英文摘要： This study was interested in how Taiwanese university freshmen think about and go about learning English and what their attitudes toward being autonomous language learners are when they are encouraged to choose their own trajectories in a college English course. We designed a one-year course project which asked 180 students in six classes to develop readers, course materials, and eventually to teach their

lessons. This project was intended to create a transition that the learners needed from being

controlled as high school students to having control as autonomous university learners. The study followed qualitative case study tradition. Through

questionnaires, classroom observations, reflection journals, teaching logs, and group interviews we sought to address three sets of research questions that asked what themes or topics the students chose to use in their project and how they approached the required tasks. Finally, how they interpreted their own roles in relation to that of the teacher’s. Preliminary findings are that students chose topics that interested them, but when the project became difficult they demonstrated resistance tendency. The

(3)

reasons also included that they were not familiar with the teachers’ expectations, the university academic culture, and many of the needed skills. To reduce tensions, the teachers made a lot of

adjustments, including more detailed instruction and setting clear rules. These led to the suggestions that learner autonomy does not just happen； often the teacher and students need to work together to make it happen.

英文關鍵詞： language learner autonomy, learner resistance, classroom research

(4)

行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫

■ 成果報告

□期中進度報告

解析外語自學：學生之抗拒與教師之定位

計畫類別：■個別型計畫 □整合型計畫

計畫編號：NSC

99-2410-H-004-207-執行期間： 2010 年 8 月 1 日至 2011 年 10 月 31 日

執行機構及系所：國立政治大學英文系

計畫主持人：招靜琪

共同主持人：謝思蕾

計畫參與人員：洪毓敏

成果報告類型(依經費核定清單規定繳交)：■精簡報告 □完整報告

本計畫除繳交成果報告外，另須繳交以下出國心得報告：

□赴國外出差或研習心得報告

□赴大陸地區出差或研習心得報告

■出席國際學術會議心得報告

□國際合作研究計畫國外研究報告

處理方式：

除列管計畫及下列情形者外，得立即公開查詢

□涉及專利或其他智慧財產權，□一年■二年後可公開查詢

中華民國 101 年 1 月 30 日

(5)

中文摘要本研究以個案之課室研究方法，旨在了解初進入大學的大一學生如何面對大學英文課程鼓勵自學的教學措施。本研究設計了一個一學年的教科書專案，讓六個班 180 位同學自己蒐尋、製作、教學。我們想看看學生如何決定題目，過程中如何面對這個學習活動，如何設定自己、老師與英文的角色。結果發現除了少數同學的確做出結果導向的決定，大部分所設定的主題大都是自己喜歡的休閒活動，與前人研究中學生以結果為主要考量的作為不盡相同。但是，過程中學生的抗拒心態仍強，主要原因包括作業內容太多、不了解大學教師之要求、也不太清楚大學老師視以為理所當然的文化等等。為了降低師生間之緊張氣氛，我們做了很多的調整，也提供了更細緻的獎懲制度與教學單元。這個研究凸顯出鼓勵大一新生進行英語自學的實質困難，也讓老師們有機會檢視我們對學生自學的期待。教師往往不全然清楚自己對所謂學生自學的期待，導致可能太多不實際的要求。文後提出師生合作達成自學理想的建議。關鍵字：外語自學、學生之抗拒、課室教學研究 ABSTRACT

This study was interested in how Taiwanese university freshmen think about and go about learning English and what their attitudes toward being autonomous language learners are when they are encouraged to choose their own trajectories in a college English course. We designed a one-year course project which asked 180 students in six classes to develop readers, course materials, and eventually to teach their lessons. This project was intended to create a transition that the learners needed from being controlled as high school students to having control as autonomous university learners. The study followed qualitative case study tradition. Through questionnaires, classroom observations, reflection journals, teaching logs, and group interviews we sought to address three sets of research questions that asked what themes or topics the students chose to use in their project and how they approached the required tasks. Finally, how they interpreted their own roles in relation to that of the teacher’s. Preliminary findings are that students chose topics that interested them, but when the project became difficult they demonstrated resistance tendency. The reasons also included that they were not familiar with the teachers’ expectations, the university academic culture, and many of the needed skills. To reduce tensions, the teachers made a lot of adjustments, including more detailed instruction and setting clear rules. These led to the suggestions that learner autonomy does not just happen; often the teacher and students need to work together to make it happen.

(6)

解析英語自學：教師之鼓勵自學與學生之抗拒 Analyzing Language Learning Autonomy: Teacher’s Encouragement and Student’s Resistance

Chin-chi Chao & Cheryl Sheridan National Chengchi University

INTRODUCTION

Autonomous language learning has been an attractive idea to teachers. In a study investigating university English teachers’ attitude toward innovation in language teaching, Chao (2009) found that all of her university teacher participants set fostering learner autonomy as one of their instructional goals. Indeed, who would not want to teach students who are highly motivated and willing to control their own learning? One concern for encouraging autonomous language learning with university freshmen in Taiwan, however, is that students may have become too used to being taken care of. The fact that they were admitted to a reputable higher education institution often has a lot to do with some high school teacher who took it upon her/himself to set strict study schedules for the student to follow for as long as one to two years prior to university entrance examinations. Typically the teacher would give frequent quizzes and examinations which served to lull the student to study a designated amount of material at a designated speed. Many students were successful in the university entrance examination because of their reliance on such teachers. Relying on these teachers in their previous stages of schooling may make it difficult for students to accept the learner-centered culture and expectation in the university English classroom. They may have problems managing their time and effort as well as controlling and pacing their learning.

Another potential problem for encouraging autonomous language learning with Taiwanese university freshmen is that students may have some confining assumptions about what language learning is all about and how one should go about doing it. In the years leading to college, English learning was often taken as

accumulating actions: There are vocabulary words to be memorized, sentence structures to be drilled and mastered, a large amount of reading passages to be studied, and sample essays to be submitted to memory as a way to develop test taking skills for writing. These assumptions about English learning becomes the dominate conceptions of and strategy for language learning. They may not be aware that becoming fluent English users needs much more than the familiar accumulation methods. Indeed, research has shown that although

productive skills (i.e., speaking and writing) are regarded as important and that university freshmen often express a high preference for developing listening and speaking skills, many students have problems identifying ways to do so on their own (Chen, 1993, Deng, 1997, Yang, 1985, Yao, 1996). Thus, the

over-emphasis on accumulation as part of the language learning and test-taking strategy before university also has the danger of limiting students’ capability to be autonomous learners.

On the other hand, with the advance of the Internet and mobile computer technology, educators and researchers interested in net-generation and their learning patterns developed by computer games and other Internet applications (e.g., Gee, 2003) often advocate that today’s students as the so-called computer natives and net-generation need to learn in ways very differently from what we teachers are used to as the generation of computer immigrants. For example, students of the current generation are often described as being more used to image literacy and information navigation, discovery and experiential learning, concrete learning and

(7)

actions, learning by trying things out and learning from each other (John Seely Brown). Focusing on cognitive skills and learning patterns encouraged by computer games, Gee discussed 36 principles of learning design of good computer games, including encouraging active, critical learning and allowing people to form bonded groups with all races and nationalities to share efforts, objectives, and practices. This line of work is inspiring because many of the Taiwanese learners are highly exposed to network computers and computer games, and it is possible that students here would flourish if similar conditions are provided. Our challenge as language educators then is to give them sufficient opportunity to learn in ways that they feel most comfortable and most confident, with or without the technology. As Gee (2003) puts it, "The key is finding ways to make hard things life enhancing so that people keep going and don't fall back on learning and thinking only what is simple and easy" (p.6). This argument is in many ways consistent with the rationale for developing learner autonomy, but the fact is not many teachers are successful in providing such opportunities since complaints about students’ being passive or lack of motivation still prevail.

The two pictures painted by the net-generation observers/game-based learning researchers and many language teachers discussed above seem conflicting to each other. On the one hand, students are said to experience difficulties in being active and autonomous learners perhaps due to previous classroom

experiences; on the other hand, as net generation they may also have difficulty engaging in learning if there is not sufficient space to allow them to be who they are. Both of these pictures actually point to one

phenomenon that can be observed in many university English classrooms in this country: Student resistance which could lead to tensions and sometimes conflicts between teachers and learners. In the spring of 2011, a news story was published in all of the major newspapers in Taiwan: A university student placed a post on a popular BBS1 saying that her English language professor was “one of the most @#$% teachers in the whole university” together with many expressions of anger about the professor because this student and many “well-behaved” students in the class had failed to get a passing grade. The professor sued the student, who was then sentenced to a fine of NT$ 214 (New Taiwan dollars, about US$7) by the court, one for each of the 214 days that the student’s post was seen on the BBS. There is no knowing what exactly happened between the teacher and the student, but such conflicts in university English classrooms are not unheard of. What such stories reveal is that there are clear mismatches between the teacher and the learners’ agendas. There may also be missing pieces in our understanding of the learners and our classroom practice. A better understanding of our learners and their resistance is expected to make it possible to provide proper opportunities for learners to learn autonomously in ways they feel motivated and to reduce conflicts in the classroom.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Autonomy or controlling one’s own learning is said to be a right of learners (Benson, 2000), but it may not always be happily embraced by them. A review of literature finds that there are psychological and sociocultural reasons for resistance (Huang, 2006). Psychologically, Hiemstra and Brokett (1994) point out that resistance to learner autonomy is linked to self-concept and self-awareness: Learners who are low in confidence or whose previous educational experience is more teacher controlled may find it difficult to be responsible for their learning or to be aware of the power that they possess as learners. In terms of

sociocultural reasons, resistance may happen because of mismatches between the teacher’s and learners’ goals.

1

BBS is the “Bulletin Board System,” an online communication tool which, despite all the other more well-known social networking tools such as Facebook, is still highly popular among Taiwanese university students. (is it necessary to say why?)

(8)

Tsang’s study (1999) in a self-access center in Hong Kong pointed out that learners did not feel autonomy would make any difference to their learning, and that they could not see the relationship between developing autonomy and their learning goals. Students basically wanted short-term results, not to develop autonomy. Similarly, Huang (2006) found students’ preoccupation with an influential national test made it difficult for them to be engaged in a metacogintion-training project which aimed for reflection and autonomy. Shi (2009) also found learner resistance to native-speaking teachers of English who may not understand what is required of learners to learn English in that particular context and what challenges learners have facing the structural oriented high-stake examinations. Indeed, Canagarajah (1993) and Tsang (1999) in two different

socio-cultural and political contexts found that product- and result-oriented learning is associated with learner resistance. Obviously, learners who think they are aware of some challenges that their teacher is not would develop resistance to the autonomy that the teacher tries to encourage.

All of the above studies are located in contexts where examinations are the learner’s focus of attention. In our own context, Taiwanese university students do not usually have such high examination pressure for

English anymore, but resistance is still common. One possible reason is face issues. Young (1992, 1999, cited in Barcelos 2003, p. 14) in investigating Taiwanese students’ belief to English learning using Horwitz’s (1988) Belief about Language Learning Inventory and her own open-ending questions found that face is important to our learners. High school English focused so much on written and examination skills that upon entering university many students would find that their English listening and speaking capabilities are clearly impaired. Their tendency to avoid any face threatening situations may make them look disinterested in class, and it becomes even more difficult for them to develop these capabilities. Face issues also remind us of learners’ tendency of acting collectively: Researchers and sociologists agree that Asians or Confucius influenced societies such as Taiwan are basically collectives, not as independence oriented as the Westerners (Nisbett, 2003). If a few students demonstrate resistance, their attitude can influence the whole class.

Since resistance to learner autonomy can be a complex issue that involves both psychological and

sociocultural reasons, in order to cerate a motivating language learning environment, we see a need for further investigation of university freshmen in our context as they transform themselves from high school to

university students in the college English course. Research has shown that university is a critical moment for many of the students to develop interest and skill as lifelong learners of English (see Chao, van Lier, and the NCCU Viewfinder Team, in review). We suspect that the problems described earlier, including depending too much on teachers, holding on to some confining assumptions about language learning, mismatches between teacher’s and learners’ goals, as well as face issues are just part of the challenges that both the teacher and students need to overcome in order to advance their learning in the new language learning cultures. We also agree with Allison and Jing (as well as Benesch, 2001) that the goal is not to eliminate all resistance but to view learners as part of a community who may have some unique takes on the language learning ecology that makes them make the kind of choice that teachers see as resistance.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

In this study we were interested in how Taiwanese university freshmen think about and go about learning English and what their attitudes toward being autonomous language learners are when they are encouraged to choose their own trajectories in learning. We designed a one-year course project which asked them to develop readers, course materials, and eventually to teach their lessons. This project was intended to create a transition

(9)

that the learners needed from being controlled as high school students to having control as autonomous university learners. The study follows qualitative case study tradition. Through questionnaires, classroom observations, reflection journals, teaching logs, and group interviews we sought to address the following three sets of research questions:

1. Preference & Interest: What kind of themes or topics do the students choose to use in their project? How do they decide to include or eliminate certain topics?

2. Process & Experience: How do they approach the required tasks? What challenges and resistance do they have? What concepts and assumptions may be confining them?

3. Teacher-student negotiation: How do they interpret their own roles in relation to that of the teacher’s? What kinds of adjustments or changes of plans are necessary based on the teachers’ observation?

METHODOLOGY Context and Participants

The context of this study was a university located in northern Taiwan which was known for its research in humanities and social sciences. Six College English classes taught by two teachers/researchers, with about 180 freshmen in total, were the participants for this study. In this required English course, students were asked to develop readers and learning materials in groups as a way to guide them toward autonomous language learning. The project lasted for 36 weeks (two semesters of the whole school year), with the first semester (18 weeks) for developing the reader, while the second for the student groups to teach their materials to the class. This report focuses on the results from the first 18 weeks’ activities.

Design of the project. The project describe here is the first semester of The Textbook Project in which freshmen in six sections of the College English taught by the two researchers create their own class textbooks. Please refer to the appendixes for assignment description and the syllabus for a detailed description of how the project flows from week to week and what the students are doing in class and for homework.

Solutions to group work problems. We tried to build into the project a few instructional strategies to make it enjoyable, yet challenging, but ultimately fulfilling for the students. One problem that often happens during group projects is that certain hard-working students do a lot more work and compensate for the others in the group who do not make an equal contribution. We attempted to lessen this situation by including three levels of responsibility: individual, group, and class so that students have to participate at all three levels in order to complete the project successfully. In other words, while the class is producing the whole text, groups of four or five students are responsible for each unit and within each unit every student is responsible for one chapter. They are encouraged to support each other and work together as a team, but each student is evaluated individually for their weekly assignments that build their own chapter. In addition there is peer critique and other interaction at the group level to help encourage consistency among unit work. At the beginning of the semester each group elects a unit representative, whose main responsibility is to communicate, on the group’s behalf, with the course assistants and me. Toward the end of the project when the units and book are in the final stages of compilation, each group elects an editor-in-chief to represent the group in a meeting with the other editors to make final decisions about the book style and order of the unit parts. Finally, they propose the final style guidelines to the class for final approval. This leads to the question of how the project is evaluated. Evaluation. As is shown on the project description, many class sessions are set up as a learning (versus

(10)

evaluative) workshop format. Students learn about certain types of writing and then have an opportunity to practice them and immediately apply them to their chapter and unit. In addition, further opportunity toward acquiring the skills takes place out of class when students finish the assignment as homework and then review and revise with classmates during the next class. After about two drafts, the teacher will evaluate each

assignment and students will get points for what we consider the pre-final draft. A simple rubric is drawn up from criteria determined during the teaching and writing phases, and the completed units are evaluated (Please see the Appendix for the evaluation form). For the final evaluation, students’ grades are based on their

individual chapter and the unit as a whole. This strategy is expected to encourage everyone to make an even contribution to the project.

Data Collection

The data collection procedure started by asking all of the students to fill out a pre-project questionnaire designed to elicit their English learning experiences, attitudes, and goals (Appendix A). The students were given sufficient time to fill out the questionnaire in the first class. In the second meeting students discussed a reading passage about what quality education should be like, using the metaphors of sausage and oyster to distinguish between an accumulation and an eliciting model of education. Reading and discussing of this article served as a bridge to the project and provided rationales for students to engage in the project. In the following weeks the students worked on the project according to the schedule (See Appendix B). Meanwhile, the teachers/researchers as well as their assistants provided help and support as needed.

Field notes were taken by the two teachers and their research assistants, focusing particularly on issues related to the research questions. The two teachers also made plans to observe each other’s classes, and there were frequent discussions between the two teachers/researchers face to face and on a weblog kept by both of them to record their thoughts after teaching every week.

The students were required to hand in written reflections at the end of major tasks or stages of the project, such as after a summary and after a glossary exercise had been handed in. During the mid-term week,

semi-structured interviews were arranged with groups to elicit more information or to give opportunity for clarification. The interviews typically lasted for 30-60 minutes, documented by digital recorders and later transcribed for analysis. (Interview questions are provided as Appendix C.) The students’ final products and presentations for this project were collected and recorded as part of the data for this study. Students were asked to sign an informed consent form at the end of the semester.

A pilot study was conducted with a few potential learners to ensure the data collection procedure was appropriate, although emerging steps and materials to ensure proper implementation were built into the project whenever necessary.

Data analysis

Analysis of this study is basically interpretive in nature based on careful data triangulation. This means comparing and contrasting data collected from different sources in order to reconstruct critical events and understand students’ reactions in a deeper level. Prolonged interaction (for the whole semester), member checking, and collaboration between the two teachers/researchers helped guard against possible bias, increased researchers’ sensitivity, and ensured trustworthiness of the result. Below is how exactly results of this study were generated --

(11)

1. Topics: What kind of materials or topics do the students choose to use in their project? How do the topics reflect their preferences and interests? What criteria do the students use to include or eliminate certain topics?

This question is addressed by examining and tabulating the topics that students groups mentioned in the discussion by all groups and those that they finally settled on at the end. Later in class meetings or at interviews the researchers also ask why these topics were mentioned, whether it was based on their preferences, interests, or other reasons, such as their assumptions of good textbook topics based on previous experience or what they think the teacher is looking for in their work.

2. Process and experience: What do they do to approach the required tasks from beginning to the end of the project? What challenges do they have? What concepts and assumptions may be confining them?

This question is addressed by examining data recorded in the teachers’ logs, reflection, and group interviews.

3. Teacher-student negotiation: How do they interpret their own role in relation to that of the teacher’s? How is the interpretation different before (in high school) and after the project (now in the university)? What kinds of adjustments or changes of plans are necessary? What do the changes reveal about student needs or characteristics?

The pre-class questionnaire by all the students in the two classes serves as a baseline to be compared at the end of the semester with the result from a post-class questionnaire. Interview data will also be used to provide more fabric to our understanding of student interpretations. Interviews with groups and individuals, triangulated with their responses to the pre- and post questionnaires, will allow us to understand how they accept their roles as autonomous language learners. Due to time limit, the initial findings below mainly use data from teaching and observation logs.

INITIAL FINDINGS 1. What Topics

In addressing the research question what themes or topics the students choose to use in their project and how they decide to include or eliminate certain topics, we documented their works and asked the students what their topics were, why they chose these topics, whether it was based on their preferences, interests, or other reasons, such as their assumptions of good textbook topics based on previous experience or what they think the teacher is looking for in their work.

Teams typically decided an initial theme first, and each team member then chose their own chapter topic. One team, however, had everybody decide their topic first, and then developed an overarching theme to cover all the topics. This created such a broad and vague theme as ‘culture.’ This strategy showed their respect to each of the members but the abstract theme also made the team project difficult to coordinate.

The themes and topics, no matter how exactly were decided, are the window to the student’s mind and their identity. Appendix D is a list of topics that the students developed. Taken together, these topics show that students tended to choose something that was light-hearted and that they enjoyed doing at leisure: Food, shopping, travelling, music, movie, stars, beauty, and sports are common themes. These themes are also frequently seen on the mass media. In other words, students are deeply influenced by the mass media, and the mass media also reflect well what young people are interested in. There are also more abstract or serious topics. For example, one group decided to title their project as “Inconvenient Truth” with Global Warming,

(12)

Acid Rain, Overpopulation, Ozone Depletion, and Species Extinction as their topics for individual chapters. When asked why, they said it would be easier to find information to put together textbook chapters. In other words, they thought ahead trying to make their job easier, but they also safely followed what they thought a textbook chapter should look like. This team made a rare product-oriented choice among all the others in this project. Thus, contrary to previous studies, most of the teams in this project chose something that they are interested in, perhaps because the students here had more option to do so than those in previous studies. The reflection journals and interviews both reveal that they felt it interesting to create a book and they were happy to make choices of topics by themselves. There are also issues related to relationships among team members, but people who mentioned this often expressed positive feelings, thinking of the project a good opportunity to learn about teamwork. They also think it was fun to be in different roles in the team. Making choices and working on the chapters made them really interested in working on the project and wanting to share with others. Only when they started to search for useful articles on the web to adapt did they start to realize the project required much more than what they enjoyed doing and it was not as easy as what they had thought. 2. How They Approached the Project

As to how they approached the required task, what challenges they had, and how they met the challenges, one of the most critical moments is at the earlier stages of the project and before students made up their mind for which topics to work on. This is when they experienced a period of confusion and disorientation. Their reflections show the following difficulties identified by the students:

1. Difficulty finding acceptable articles. This is quite wide spread because many students could not match their search with the criteria that we provided.

2. Technical problems with Moodle, the online course management system. This was due to unfamiliar technical environment and tools for both the teachers and students.

3. Too much work. There were assignments and guidepost for the project to be reached every week. Students needed to work in class as well as out of the class.

4. Really different type of class: Many felt that it was strange at first but gradually become used to the experience.

5. Confusion. Students thought that they were learning some useful skills, but because of the newness of the experience, they also felt confused (Cheryl’s reflection summary)

Instead of solving problems with group members as was expected of them, many of the students seemed to resort to escape as a coping strategy. The teacher’s log recorded our thought at the time about attendance:

Several students asked me if they could leave the class earlier for ball games. This upset me a lot. I told them they needed to have official documents and they needed to make up for the hours that they missed. Then, they stayed, but I could see that they were not interested. This continues to happen in Week 8 and 9. Almost every week there is something that some of them needed to leave earlier for. (Teacher’s log)

The classroom log below also shows that attendance problems occupy the TA observer’s mind. Attendance problems and some of the students’ avoidance attitude led to tensions between them and the teachers.

(13)

Table I. Classroom Log for One of the Earlier Weeks

Group 1 Beauty: All five girls showed up today and seemed to have figured out what they have to do

and be more involved in this project. Some of them used online articles from “.com”, so they had to do more searching on the Net this week.

Group 2 Shopping: All the four members showed up today. None of them seemed to devote much of

themselves to the project. When Professor Chao switched to Chinese and said “We will get along with each other for one year,” I noticed two girls pulling a face. A girl changed her topic to the original “Shopping Heaven” because she found some articles on it.

Group 3 Coffee: All the four members showed up today. The one who left the class half an hour earlier

did some make up for his early leaving (His topic is “Coffee and Health”). I think they wouldn’t be a problem.

Group 4 Asian Food: All the four members were present today. They were the ones who enjoyed the

project most, I think. But the boy still kept silent for most of the time. Besides, two of them forgot to bring the form.

Group 5 Movie: Three girls were present today. One girl told me she had to leave the class for the

basketball game, but she didn’t get the permission from Professor Chao. She was very anxious, I think. Besides, they told me that they couldn’t log in to Moodle after following instructions from the expert. They might figure it out with the help from other experts who are responsible for Moodle this week.

Group 6 Music: Four boys showed up, but three of them were absent last week. Two of them didn’t

reach an agreement on their duties after their absence last week since two of them were competing to do the topic “Metal,” and the student who brought the article on this topic was the winner. The other one had no choice but working on “Hard Rock.” They were still behind the schedule.

According to the teacher’s log at the time, there were also problems of plagiarism and not knowing how to properly compose a summary of the article that they found on the topics that they chose to work on. All of these required explicit teaching on the teacher’s part. Students were not able to do it right automatically.

I was not concerned with local issues in the sentences, but global issues of writing a summary. I was most concerned with sentences directly copied from the original text and the stance taken when writing, which should be the same as the original author's. The summaries also needed to cover the whole original article. Many students worked on the beginning of the article and then left the content of the last half out of the summary; others left out random paragraphs. When summaries were

obviously copied, I looked at the original text, if provided, and highlighted the sentences in the summary and the text. Some summaries ended up totally highlighted. This hopefully alerted the students to the issue quite clearly. Otherwise, I needed to give instructions on where to post and how to write the document names and subject lines. I kept a notepad document where I wrote the most common responses and then copied and pasted them accordingly. Notepad works better for copying text into the HTML windows of the forums. (Cheryl’s log, Week 6)

Most difficult task on the teacher’s part was actually to get the students follow instructions:

The glossary lists were all over the place. I had them help each other check the completeness of the work. They all did the assignment, but many of them forgot about what I had said that the sentence

(14)

has to come directly from their article. They will do it again as a second draft this week.

One problem that came up in all classes was that at least half the students did not bring the The Thoughtful Reader handouts or the Content Material Information Sheet. Emily was kind enough to run to make copies for the students. Apparently many students were not aware of the need to bring them or complete the latter. It seems a lot of freshmen are not used to having to check email or getting on line to get or receive information for their classes. Cathy and Evelyn think this is b/c for the students, the Internet has so far just been something to play around on, not a tool for school. Most don't really even use email. C and E said maybe in high school they sign up for a yahoo or hotmail account, but then get so much junk, they don't pay attention to it. To communicate, they use MSN. (Week 5 Cheryl’s log)

The observation log also recorded:

Students showed up not having anything to work on. I can see that the tension is building up. “Where is your summary?” “It’s in the computer.” I ask myself why they behave like this. Is our instruction not clear?” (cc’s note)

In our logs, we found that we wished the students knew --

1. how to take advantage of the project and its process to develop language proficiency instead of focusing too much on getting the required task done only

2. how to do a bit more than what is required 3. how to use English as a real conversational tool 4. how to listen and follow instruction

5. how to show up in class well prepared, including typing up the assignment and bringing a copy to class for discussion. (It is not all right to just say “I forgot about it.”)

6. how to pace themselves in getting the work done

These wishes reflect our expectations and assumptions for learner autonomy, and they also reflect some academic culture that we teachers take for granted, for example, one does not hand in a half-A4 page

hand-written (in pencil) assignment. In many ways we felt that we were against students’ strong resistance – resistance that had a lot to do with their unfamiliarity with the needed skills such as summarizing an article while avoiding plagiarizing it. They were also not familiar with the university academic culture and

requirements as well as their tendency to do just enough. The problem is they were not aware that the two were in conflict to each other: Because the students were not familiar with the university academic culture, their interpretation of “enough” was actually not considered enough at all. We decided to explicitly teach necessary skills and set requirements, but getting them listen and follow was not easy. Besides, all the new and trivial requirements also added to the existing tensions. We suspected that they also considered us teachers not doing our job well because the project required a lot of student’s time, effort, planning and

(15)

3. Role interpretation

In terms of how they interpreted their own role in relation to that of the teacher’s and how the interpretation is different before (in high school) and after the project (now in the university), we paid attention to which aspects of this project that made the students accept or feel difficult to accept their role as an autonomous language learner and feel willing or not willing to engage. The following two types of classroom vignettes best illustrate our observation and the students’ role interpretation:

(1.) Lectures Created Comfort and Tranquility

The class had some rare moments of peaceful on-task time when students were asked to do familiar tasks. One such example is Dictionary Work. Students brought in English-English and English-Chinese dictionaries to develop a glossary for their chapters. First, the teacher gave out some handouts and had students do some exercises on guessing the meanings of some new words from context. These kinds of exercises seemed comfortable for students perhaps because they all seemed to be on task when the teacher took them through the vocabulary exercises in a traditional lecture way. They followed the teachers step by step exceptionally well.

(2.) Getting Them Ask Questions, Think, and Speak English

This project was a very different experience from the students’ previous lecture-oriented class, particularly because the students were asked to ask questions, think, and speak English. It was in these moments when we found students had confining thoughts about themselves as language learners.

a. Getting them ask questions

Asking questions is such a common activity, but our students had very little such experience. As noted in one of the teacher’s email correspondence, “I [the teacher] have been a bit surprised at how much difficulty the students have had writing grammatically correct questions. I asked one student yesterday if they hadn’t been taught question forms and she said, “We were only taught to answer questions, not how to ask.” Wow, a great quote. I said I would be sure to remember that.”

Because they did not have a lot of experience making questions, students also have trouble with present perfect and why questions especially. Instead of “Why do Italians use so much olive oil in their cooking” it would be “Why Italians use so much….” (Cheryl email)

We decided to give them a lot of opportunities to ask questions, even on the survey form. “On the survey sheet, they were also to think of a question to ask their classmates. This seemed like an unheard of request to so many of them. Even if they could read the words of the prompt, it seemed like they couldn't fathom the idea of being part of the question creation. Many to most students in all classes really had a hard time

wrapping their heads around the concept. It would be interesting to ask some students about their impressions b/c I don't want to project too much. I felt this was perhaps one of the most important parts of the survey (what I am very curious about), so I needed to encourage many students individually to express some

(16)

they had a hard time understanding the question, "What has gone well for you so far." (Week 7 Cheryl’s log)

b. Getting them think about why

In many situations we would stop the project and engage the students in thinking and discussion about why they were doing the task in front of them. This again is something very new to them, as in the classroom vignette below shows.

"So why do you need to write a summary in this class?" I asked. After a pause I joked, "for a homework assignment!" Then I added, "I don't think you have enough to do, so I want you to write a summary!" Laughing. Then got responses like,

"To make sure we understand the articles." "Yes, but why would you need to?" I asked.

One student in a couple of the classes said so that other members of the group would know the article better. I said that was true, but you are all supposed to read each others articles anyway. (Cheryl, week 5) From the students’ answers (i.e., “To make sure we understand the article.”), one can see that students basically thought of themselves still as passive receiver. The teacher was trying to get the students oriented around the project and to give them a concrete purpose for writing the summary. She wanted them to know that it was not because the teacher was asking them to do it, but because other people will need the

information. Through more questions and answers, it became clear that the class needed to create two books: a teacher's book and then the student book would be formed out of that because teachers who use their books would need a summary of the articles so that they can plan the lesson before reading the whole article. Through this discussion we wished the students would think of the project as an authentic task and that they were creating something that would be used in the real-world.

c. Getting them speak English

During the semester, we incorporated small communicative activities to season the quiet seat work, giving them opportunities to stand up, move around, and enjoy interacting with their teammates in the English that they could use with comfort. However, in some communicative activities in which English was clearly to be used, we found some interesting phenomena which revealed the boundaries that students set for English. In their mind, English seemed to be a language to be exercised, not to be used. For example, they would stop in the middle of a communicative activity to discuss the rules and requirements in Chinese because they felt it necessary to make sure that they understand what is required of them and the rules. They would also stop speaking in English when they thought they have done/finished the required activity, and then they would just sit around and wait, not doing anything at all. When asked, they would say they have done everything that was required. It struck us that they were more like filling in the blanks in these communicative tasks, rather than really using the language to talk to each other. Below is one of such observations:

In their discussion (on Friday), everything was in Chinese, even when they talked to Everyln, the

teaching assistant (TA). I thought their English was not good, but in the second hour when the group was reshuffled Girl A was working with one boy and one girl from other groups. The boy insisted on

speaking in English even when Girl A spoke in Chinese. Pretty soon, Girl A had to play along. Her English is not bad at all! Why couldn’t she speak English in her team?? One possible explanation: The

(17)

discussion at the end of the project is considered more for practicing English, while project discussion is to get the work done. There are goals to achieve; efficiency is important – thus, Chinese.” (Week 4, CC’s observational note)

During the sixth week, there was also a discussion on whether TAs should talk to the students in Chinese. The result of this discussion is Cheryl's email to the TAs below:

Dear all,

This is a quick response regarding the topic of how much Chinese to use with students, but Professor Chao and I will be considering the options further and get back to everyone with more explanation at a later date. For now, as much as possible, speak and write to students in English. If someone requests help in Chinese, especially if they explicitly request Chinese because they are feeling unsure about what they need to do, then of course oblige. But, first respond in English and then Chinese if necessary, and bring it back to English as quickly as possible, especially when in class, or even after the dismissal bell goes off. Also, I would like to avoid mass mailings with Chinese explanations, unless there is really strong indication that students are seriously floundering en masse. In that case, please talk to Professor Chao or myself. If a particular student writes to you in Chinese, respond in English and provide more difficult ideas in Chinese.

You guys are an important bridge between the students and the teachers. You are closer to them in age and experience, so you should have a pretty good idea of what the students need. However, you also know that at some point they really need to be weaned from Chinese when in an English language situation. You can show them that this is possible and it isn’t weird to speak to another Chinese person in English. Most importantly, they need to believe that they are capable of communicating in English well. You can also help them be patient when reading instructions in English so they can work through what they need to do. It just takes practice and everything they do can be a valuable learning experience. Share with them your own experiences if you feel comfortable doing so. And let us know your thoughts about this issue.

Thank you so much for your dedication to this class and project. Sincerely,

Cheryl and Prof. Chao (Week 6 CC’s log)

This letter shows that in order to reduce tensions and to help students enjoy the project more, we were willing to adjust to student needs; however, we also saw good reasons to help them move away from the limited conception that English is only a language for exercise and that students have to be receivers of fixed knowledge. While we decided to set explicit rules, deadlines, we also gave points for all the requirements such as tying up the assignments or bringing in the right parts of the project to work on in class in a proper folder, attempting to guide them in positive attitudes. In addition, we made sure that the students know that the requirements could be negotiated, encouraging them to come forward and tell us their wishes. Most importantly, there were also the so-called “cookie meetings” in which student teams met with the teacher in the teacher’s office. With cookies and occasional Chinese, the atmosphere finally became more relax and the students were more willing to voice their true feelings and ask real questions.

(18)

The syllabus and teaching approach for the second cycle has also been adapted to compensate for the particular needs arising from the experience documented in the first cycle reported in this paper. The project assignment description had been adjusted in many minor ways, mostly in terms of scheduling more time and flexibility for drafting and rewriting, during the first cycle implementation and those changes have been incorporated. In addition three major changes have been made to the way the project will be approached this time. First, following the semester introduction and acclimation period, students will have the chance to use the actual textbooks created by the students previously as learning materials taught by the teacher-researcher instead of a mini mock version created by course assistants. Second, more explicit training and

awareness-building of language learning autonomy will be emphasized by including more reflective activities and explicit prompts for the three reflection assignments. Third, the design will incorporate purposeful

involvement of the researcher-teacher and course assistants with students, especially at critical moments of the project with the goal of building learner confidence to experience self-agency to a greater and more

meaningful degree later, even though some opportunities of autonomy may be lost initially. This could also be described as scaffolding. Aside from these three major changes to the course, the whole project will still cover the majority of the two-semester course.

Discussion

This paper reports a project that aimed to encourage language learner autonomy. In the participants’ mind, this project was very different from their high school experience. One occasion when students were willing to make choices was deciding on the topics and themes for their chapters and units. After all, it was not difficult to perceive and understand what was required of them. Another positive event in which students showed accepting attitudes was when they sat among peers in familiar lectures because this class experience was consistent with their previous experience.

However, we teachers actually had a lot more expectations than these. We wished that they handed in assignments that were typed up and spell checked, but they would bring us pencil-written assignments on a paper smaller than A4 or on a page torn from their notepad. We expected students to organize, manage, and bring to class learning materials, but they would come to class totally unprepared. We also expected them to speak to each other in English and be able to engage in interactive activities, but they would do so only if it was a manageable task which marked clearly a beginning and end of when they were supposed to speak English. We also expected them to search and select good articles and compose a summary, but their skills were confining. They also had troubles asking questions since they were more used to answering questions given to them. All of these reveal mismatches between their previous learning experience and the learner autonomy expectations for them.

In a context in which students did not have the pressure of high-stakes examination, the study found that most of the students were still influenced by their previous product-oriented learning experience, as indicated in previous studies. For learners to change their attitude, Allison and Huang (2010) identified in a group of learners’ reflection journals cognitive, critical, and communicative discourse that learners made in order to accommodate, adjust, and radically change their existing belief, attitude, or knowledge in language learning. However, our experience shows that it is a complex process that both teachers and learners need to pay efforts. In our project, students needed to learn how to approach academic work differently. The challenge that they faced might have been too new and difficult that their resistance was actually a demand for guidance

(19)

or change of instructional strategy to help them do it “right”. In other words, we teachers probably had too many and too high expectations for learner autonomy but were not fully aware of them. Systematic

observation and careful reviewing of our intention allowed us to supplement our expectations with necessary guidance and instruction. We also learn to keep in mind of the fact that students just arrived from an academic culture that is very different from ours. They needed to be taught many things, and teaching needed to be done in manageable installments and in positive atmosphere. It was clear to us that if we were relaxed, as in the cookie meetings, our students would also be relaxed.

Based on this experience, we would like to suggest teachers look at learner resistance as a learning opportunity which could lead to better rapport, encourage communication between the teacher and students, and introduce genuine enjoyment for teaching and learning, if handled properly. We also see that resistance to learner autonomy can be reduced by providing some more nuanced instruction, guidance, scaffolding, or even a redesign of the tasks, if necessary. We trust that positive rapport would make it possible to gradually guide the students into accepting their new role and identity as autonomous language learners. If the resistance is strong, perhaps an adjustment of expectations would also allow students to take a gradual pace to learner autonomy. After all, learner autonomy does not happen automatically; it makes sense for both the learner and teacher to work together to achieve it.

REFERENCES

Allison, D. & Huang, J. (2010). Learner choice and accommodation: Exploring comments in Chinese EFL learning diaries. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 76-92.

Barcelos, A. M. F. (2003). Researching beliefs about SLA: A critical review. In P. Kalaja and A. M. F. (eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches, 7-33. Netherlands: Kluwer Academis Publishers. Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: Theory, politics, and practice. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Benson, P. (2000). Autonomy as a learners’ and teachers’ right. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath, T. Lamb (eds.), Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions (pp. 111-117). Harrlow, UK: Pearson Education.

Canagarajah, A. S. (1993). Critical ethnography of a Sri Lankan classroom: Ambiguities in opposition to reproduction through ESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 601-626.

Chao, C. (2009). Dimensions of Innovation and Creativity in TESOL: Views from Eight Language Teachers from Taiwanese Higher Education. English Teaching and Learning, 33(3), 147-181.

Chao, C., van Lier, L., & the NCCU Viewfinder Team (In review). Becoming a multicompetent professional in an EFL context: a multi-layered narrative inquiry.

Chen 陳秋蘭 (1993). 大一英文何去何從。中華民國第十屆英語文教學研討會。台北：文鶴。 Deng 鄧慧君 (1997). 英語聽力理解策略之使用探討。英語教學，21(3)，24-39.

Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hiemstra, R. & Brokett, R.G. (Eds.) (1994). Overcoming resistance to self-direction in adult learning. Jossey Bass.

Huang, J. (2006). Learner resistance in metacognition training? An exploration of mismatches between learner and teacher agendas. Language Teaching Research, 10(1), 95-117.

(20)

Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The Geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently… and why. New York: Free Press.

Shi, L. (2009). Chinese-western "contact zone": students' resistance and teachers' adaptation to local needs. TESL Canada Journal, 27 (1), 47-63.

Tsang, E.S.C. (1999). Resistance to self-access learning. In Morriison, B., (ed.), Experiments and evaluation in self-access language learning (Selected papers from the 2nd HASALD conference, 5 September 1998). Hong Kong Association for Self-Access Learning and Development (HASALD), 25-42.

Yang 楊毅麗 (1985). 大一英文問題初探。載於陳靖奇、黃准英、蕭義宗、郭崇冬、陳曼鈺、王桂華主編，中華民國第二屆英語文教學研討會「英語文教學論文集」(頁 109-117)。台北：文鶴。

Yao 姚崇昆 (1996). 大一英聽課程需求分析。載於黃素月、陳秋蘭主編，「中華民國第十二屆英語文

教學研討會論文集」(頁 80-96)。台北：文鶴。 Appendix A.

Timeline for the Study & Syllabus

Classroom activity Research Activity

4 weeks prior to the study

n/a z Design of the study

z Pilot study z Refine the design Week 1 z Short introduction of the

course

z “Getting to know you” activity

z Ss filling out the

background questionnaire z Give student the reading

(handout) to be done by next class

z Put students into groups

z Collecting background information through the pre-project questionnaire

z Examining the questionnaire ASAP

z Discussion between the researchers (reflection and plan for the next meeting)

Week 2 z Discussion of the article: What True Education Should Do, by Sydney J. Harris

z Discussion of marking a book and how to read a book

z Field notes: Students’ questions and reactions z Decide focus groups. Send invitations and the

informed consent form.

Week 3 Project Commences

z In groups check out sample textbooks

z Class brainstorms topics of interest

z Get into groups

z Put audio recorders on focus group tables.

z Researchers circle around or sit with teams to record their activities as in pilot

z Field notes: Students’ questions and reactions z Discussion between the researchers (reflection and

(21)

z Groups decide topics and check with all groups as class.

z Groups think about sub-topics or angles z Searching for good

information and analyzing sources on the Internet z Discuss sources which must

be from established media

z Send audio recording for transcription (assistant)

Week 4 (Goal statement due)

z Each student needs to bring two or three articles on group’s topic

z (present to group members) z Group decides best ones;

each student will be responsible for one. z Be sure to consider

different perspectives or sub-topics of the topic.

plan for the next meeting)

z Send audio recording for transcription (assistant)

Week 5-10 For the next several weeks, every group will create the materials for their chapter. Each week, each group will work on the exercises and activities for one article. The individual who is responsible for that week’s article will then write up the material in Word as homework and submit it to their online space on WM3 system for the instructor to check. Each chapter will include the following:

Summary of article’s main points Vocabulary list, entries

Comprehension questions Discussion questions Other activity: word game,

(22)

dialog between two people in articles, etc.

Each unit will include an introduction to the unit (overview of topic and each article).

Weeks 11-13 (Week 11, Reflection 1 due) Proofreading, peer evaluations, revisions

plan for the next meeting) z Examining Reflection 1

z Send audio recording for transcription (assistant) Week 14 (Reflection 2 due)

Presentation skills primer: students will learn basic English presentation skills

plan for the next meeting) z Examining Reflection 2

z Send audio recording for transcription (assistant) Week 15 Work on presentations |

Compile and print books

z Send audio recording for transcription (assistant) Week 16 (Final reflection due)

Bring finished books | Practice Presentation

Filling out the post-questionnaire

plan for the next meeting) z Examining Final Reflection

z Collecting information through the post-project questionnaire

Week 17 and 18

Oral presentations z Field notes: Students’ questions and reactions z Discussion between the researchers (reflection and

Winter break z Analysis

(23)

The Syllabus

Syllabus for College English I (98-1)

Course Goals 課程目標

College English I/II two-semester course, designed to help students to become proficient in English used in social and academic environments. Students are expected to improve their receptive skills as well as productive skills in a cooperative learning atmosphere in this class.

Some specific goals for the first semester:

• Listening: Students will be able to understand English in social and academic situations relevant to topics of study and class room experiences.

• Speaking: Students will engage in conversation in the planning and execution of projects, participate in pair/group discussions, and present their ideas to the class.

• Reading: Students will learn reading strategies through class activities. Strategies and skills will include scanning, skimming, guessing meaning from context, vocabulary gloss creation,

identifying main ideas and supporting details, and critical thinking to name a few.

• Writing: During the first semester writing practice will occur in several ways including creating questions for comprehension and topics for discussion. Paragraph writing and academic skills such as summarizing and paraphrasing will be introduced and practiced. Students will also write a few entries in a reflection journal during the semester.

Synopsis

課程大綱

In College English I, all four language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) will all be used. The major task of the first semester will be the students’ creation of a reader, a book of articles

(gathered from established media on the Internet) with accompanying exercises. In small groups, students will collect articles on a theme of their choice to study. Then they will create vocabulary lists, comprehension questions, topics for discussion, and other activities. In groups, students will also introduce the material to their classmates. Eventually all the groups’ articles will be compiled into a class reader. While this is a student centered task-based course, skills and concepts will be presented through lecture and the instructor will play a pivotal facilitative role offering necessary support throughout the project process.

Tentative Fall 2009 College English I Schedule上課進度 Week 1

I would very much like to meet everyone who is signing up for the class. We will introduce ourselves to each other through various activities. You will find out all about this very interesting English class. You can also pick up the handout for next week.

(24)

Week 2

What True Education Should Do, an article by Sydney J. Harris (Handout provided)

Let’s imagine: What if you could decide what you do in the College English course and the material that you use?

Week 3

Reader Textbook Project Commences

1. In groups check out reading textbooks that I bring to class. 2. Class brainstorms topics of interest

3. Get into groups

z Groups decide topics and check with all groups as class. z Groups think about sub-topics or angles

Searching for good information and analyzing sources on the Internet

• Discuss sources which must be from established media

Week 4 (Goal statement due)

Each student needs to bring two or three articles on group’s topic Group decides best ones; each student will be responsible for one. • Be sure to consider different perspectives or sub-topics of the topic.

Weeks 5-10

For the next several weeks, every group will create the materials for their chapter.

Each week, each group will work on the exercises and activities for one article. The individual who is responsible for that week’s article will then write up the material in Word as homework and submit it to their online space on WM3 system for the instructor to check. Each chapter will include the following:

• Summary of article’s main points • Vocabulary list, entries

• Comprehension questions • Discussion questions

• Other activity: word game, dialog between two people in articles, etc.

• Each unit will include an introduction to the unit (overview of topic and each article).

Weeks 11-13 (Week 11, Reflection 1 due) Proofreading, peer evaluations, revisions Week 14 (Reflection 2 due)

Presentation skills primer: students will learn basic English presentation skills

Week 15

Work on presentations | Compile and print books

Week 16 (Final reflection due)

Bring finished books | Practice Presentation

(25)

Teaching Methods 教學方式

This is a student centered class in which you will source and create the content with guidance from the instructor. We will engage in a variety of activities and tasks which will provide ample opportunity to consider topics and issues in a variety of social, cultural, and academic topics. Please note five important points:

1. The class will be conducted entirely in English.

2. Positive student-student and student-teacher interactions will be emphasized.

3. Students are urged to participate actively in group discussions, and are encouraged to express their own views on topics covered in class.

4. Students must take responsibility for their own learning which means you need to be pro-active in keeping up with assignments and requirements. See below for more details.

5. Students will set personal goals for this course and will monitor their own progress in the form of a reflection journal.

評分標準Grading Final grades will be determined by the following:

• Project: 50% • Reflections: 15% • Attendance: 15% • Oral report: 20%

(26)

Appendix B Questionnaire

(Note: There are only some differences in wording between Pre and Post versions.) Your Name: _____________ Class: __________ ID No._________________

1. On a scale of 5 (best) to 1 (weakest), how do you rate your four skills in English now?

Good ………..………..…Weak 5 4 3 2 1 a. Listening b. Speaking c. Reading d. Writing

2. On a scale of 5 (agree) to 1 (disagree), how would you rate your feelings toward learning English now?

Agree………..………Disagree 5 4 3 2 1 e. I have confidence. f. It is important. g. I am interested. h. I take initiative. i. I give it priority. j. I have know-how.

3. In your experience, who have made the most decisions for you when it comes to learning English (for example, decisions about when to study, how to study, what to focus on)?

Myself My teacher(s) / tutor(s) My parent(s) My brother(s) / sister(s) My friend(s) / classmate(s) Others (Who? ____________________)

4. In your English learning experience, what has been the happiest and most satisfying experience?

5. In your English learning experience, what has been the most challenging and difficult thing to overcome?

6. What roles did your high school English teacher(s) play in your English learning experience? (You may choose more than one role from the list below.)

(27)

An evaluator A friend A guide A parent classroom orders) A resource person A role model A time keeper

Other roles: please specify: _____________________________________________

7. Based on your experience, what makes an English teacher a good teacher?

8. In order to improve your English, what do you usually do out of class?

9. Now that you are a university student, what is your attitude toward English learning? How is it different from your attitude in high school?

10. How different do you expect a college English class to be from that of your high school?

Very Different…..……….………Not Different

5 4 3 2 1 I expect the College

English class to be different from my high school English class.

11. Ideally, what roles do you expect a university professor to play in your English learning experience? (You may choose more than one role from the list below.)

A care giver An evaluator A friend A guide A parent

A police officer (who maintains classroom orders)

A resource person A role model A time keeper

Other roles: please specify: _____________________________________________

12. In your mind, what makes a university professor different from a high school teacher in an English class?

13. What do you expect to learn from a college English class?

14. How do you see yourself use English in the future? What is your goal for learning English?

15. Special background related to English learning: (For example, if you were educated in an English speaking country, please specify where and how long you received such education. If you have special difficulties, please specify as well.)

解析外語自學：學生之抗拒、教師之定位、與校園自學社群之衝突問題

行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫 成果報告